|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Took the hint.
|
Hello everyone. This is important enough to break my silence on these issues.
Latest in Xbiz: http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=16460 Quote:
That would suggest that there was enough probable cause given to a judge to justify not only a standard 2257 (no warrant required) but a fuller inspection of all of the premises (looking for child porn or other illegal material). I see no "total harrassment to be ransacking the entire house" in this situation. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Hey, can you take the wheel for a second, I have to scratch my self in two places at once
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: near Seattle WA
Posts: 183
|
Hmmm. . . . that's good clarification -- still leaves it up in the air what the warrant was for -- Ruch made it sound like part and parcel of the inspection: "I wasn’t going to let them go through anything with out some sort of warrant to search. They had shown me a search warrant for a search and seize of the property. They said this is a standard investigation that they’re doing it with all companies that produce pornographic materials."
Unless he is lying and there was something more sinister going on that ummm. . . warranted the warrant, I still think it's harrassment and totally fucked up if they had no cause for the search & seizure thing other than that he's a pornographer. Anyone know the whole story? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|